http://electroniciraq.net/news/1881.shtml

"On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh."

__________________
www.contraweb.tk
.: Digital Activism for the New Millenium :.

As global oil production peaks and energy demand from China and India skyrocket, the U.S. will have no choice but to secure as many oil reserves as possible. Iraq's oil production won't peak until 2010 (the rest of the world's production wil have peaked by then) making it the perfect nest egg.

But is that a bad thing? I say no, if only because without cheap oil the U.S. economy collapses. Wars are, and always will be, about securing a civilization's way of life. Our way of life just so happens to require a massive amount of oil.

I'd rather have the administration be upfront about it though, as opposed to spreading B.S. about saving Iraqis from evil. Let's just admit we need the oil to continue living like we do, and that it's a dog-eat-dog world out there. Call it selfish, but I'm glad we have the oil as opposed to China and India...

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

Wonder when Scott Ritter turned into a turncoat.....and what turned him? He is one bitter man.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

We do need a lot of oil and future stability in that region makes oil cheaper. You don't think that it has anything to do with nukes and terrorism though?

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

I don't think it has to do with nukes.

Russia has said that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Granted, I wouldn't trust the Russians for ****, but Iran would be sinking its own ship if it started to develop a nuclear program like, say, North Korea. So the Ruskies do have, at best, a little bit of merit.

Why?

North Korea is a third world hellhole that means nothing to the world. That's why they're playing the nuclear card; trying to get attention to hopefully (for them) extort the rest of the world into giving them resources to stop their nuclear program.

Iran is a major oil exporter. If it started openly developing nuclear weapons and delivery rockets, do you think it’d fare very well for business? The Iranian regime knows any instability in the country would hurt them the most: oil sales would be disrupted and they’d lose billions.

But why would a country loaded with oil want nuclear energy? Perhaps we should look to a very popular saying (in the Middle East) that originated in Saudi Arabia:

My father rode a camel, I drove a car, my son flies a jet plane, my grandson will ride a camel.

Saudia Arabia is guilty as anyone of cooking the books when it comes to stating their proven oil reserves. Internally, they (and other oil-producing states) know very well about the impending oil crisis. As global oil demand skyrockets (and oil production peaks), it’s beneficial for business to sell (and preserve) as much oil as possible.

A nuclear power plant would allow Iran to sell more oil to the world. They could make a helluva lot more money selling oil than using it for internal energy production. That’s why nuclear power plants are, at this point, a wise investment.

Does this mean Iran is a good nation-state? Hell no. But economics plays a greater roll in policy making than anything else. Iran is simply in the business of making money…like everyone else.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

Bombing the nuclear sites wouldn't be nothing new, its been done many times and nobody has had a problem with it.

But regime change, I find that difficult to buy. If it does happen, ooh boy will it make for an interesting 4 years.

Israel would beg to differ.

Only because their tyrant leaders take in all the money. They are sitting on all of that oil. They do not need nukes to sell oil.

I'm sure many of the UN members wouldn't have trouble with it.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine